' The petitioner filed an application under section 12(2), C.P.C. Which was dismissed on 30-7-1997 by the learned trial Court on the ground that the petitioner has failed to produce his evidence.
2. Arguments of the learned counsel for the parties have been heard and record has been perused.
The most significant thing to be noticed is that on the earlier two dates i.e. 26-7-1997 and 28-7- 1997, the Presiding Officer was on leave and the case was adjourned to 30-7-1997 when the evidence of the plaintiff was closed. It is settled proposition of law that unless the date of hearing has been fixed at the request of the defaulting party, its evidence cannot be struck off. If any authority is needed, reference may be made to Nowsheri Khan v. Said Ahmad (1983 SCM R 1092) and Quteb-ud-Din v. Gulzar and others (PLD 1991 SC 1109). In the present case admittedly, 30-7- 1997 was not a date which was fixed as a result of request made on the earlier date. On the other hand, the case was adjourned to 30-7-1997 because the Presiding Officer was on leave. In these circumstances, the provision of Order XVII, rule 3, C.P.C. Have been misapplied.
' In view of what has been said above, this petition is allowed, the impugned order is set aside and the case is remanded to the trial Court for decision afresh allowing the parties to lead their respective evidence. No order as to costs. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.